The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old February 14, 2014, 04:35 PM   #26
krucam
Member
 
Join Date: September 21, 2010
Posts: 24
I doubt the Court would honor such a request. That said, Petitioners will get the final word in before Drake goes to Conference. It won't be missed by the Court...
__________________
Mark C.
DFW, TX
krucam is offline  
Old March 1, 2014, 12:48 AM   #27
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,322
Gura has filed a supplemental brief to his cert. Of course Peruta is the subject.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf drake_supplemental_FILED.pdf (74.4 KB, 270 views)
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old March 1, 2014, 09:55 AM   #28
KyJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 7,756
I mentioned this in the Pertua thread, but Gura notes in the supplemental brief that if the Supreme Court is waiting for Peruta to come up to it, it may be waiting in vain because the sheriff has said he is not going to seek rehearing or cert. and :
Quote:
And any plans by California’s Attorney General to intervene and seek rehearing might be complicated by the panel’s belief that its decision did not implicate any state statutes.
__________________
Jim's Rules of Carry: 1. Any gun is better than no gun. 2. A gun that is reliable is better than a gun that is not. 3. A hole in the right place is better than a hole in the wrong place. 4. A bigger hole is a better hole.
KyJim is offline  
Old March 1, 2014, 11:39 PM   #29
62coltnavy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 1, 2011
Posts: 228
Very sweet supplement. And yes, I think that the Supremes are very much interested in accepting a case now that the Ninth has spoken--at least as long as the Peruta decision stands. If en banc is granted, the panel decision evaporates, and then we have to wait to see what the en banc panel has to say. In that circumstance, granting cert in Drake is iffy because the dramatic split caused by O'Scanlain's opinion disappears.

Gura is absolutely correct that Pruta's path to the Supreme Court is uncertain. True, Gore has backed out, but there are now pending three motions to intervene, two of which (by the Brady campaign and the California Police Chiefs Association) are almost certain to fail. And from a pure legal perspective, the motion filed by State Attorney General Harris should be denied as well-and her and her staff attorney sanctioned for filing a frivolous brief--as the AG has repeatedly declined invitations to participate, and in fact successfully moved to dismiss a case that named the AG on the basis that the AG does not have the authority to direct the sheriffs' exercise of discretion in determining "good cause" under the statute. But there is the political angle as well--allowing her to intervene almost assuredly guarantees an appeal to the Supreme Court if the decision stands. With Drake pending and PEruta applying, I would think that a grant of cert is highly likely--the issue is ripe for the court's institutional review.

The fast track to the Supreme Court is to grant AG's motion to intervene, and then deny the petition for rehearing. I'll keep my fingers crossed.
62coltnavy is offline  
Old March 14, 2014, 06:33 PM   #30
press1280
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 223
Hat tip to ryan j at MDshooters...

NJ's reply is in.

This brief is absolutely stunning, I can't believe they actually believe what they wrote:
According to the Ninth Circuit, the Second
Amendment requires “that the states permit some
form of carry for self-defense outside the home.”
Peruta, ___ F.3d ___, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 2786, at
*78. New Jersey’s Handgun Permit Law does precisely
this.

They seriously are trying to make SCOTUS believe that CA's scheme is somehow remarkably different than NJ's. It's flat out laughable. In fact, I'll bet your odds of landing a permit in CA (outside of maybe SF) are much much higher than NJ. The brief is flat out delusional : In New Jersey, on the other
hand, the Superior Court “shall issue” a permit to
carry if it is satisfied that the applicant is a person of
good moral character, is not subject to any enumerated
disability, is thoroughly familiar with the safe
handling and use of handguns, and has a justifiable
need to carry a handgun. N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:58-4(d).
Thus, California’s law gives the sheriff more discretion
to refuse to issue a permit than the New Jersey law.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf NJ_AG_Brief_Opposing_Sup_Ct_.pdf (120.8 KB, 6 views)
press1280 is offline  
Old March 14, 2014, 09:03 PM   #31
speedrrracer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 15, 2011
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 271
Yeah, I read that earlier and flipped out just a bit

I guess if the judge is an anti he won't care, but any other judge and I'd have a hard time believing the judge wouldn't feel that an insult to his / her intelligence had not just happened.
speedrrracer is online now  
Old March 14, 2014, 11:45 PM   #32
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,479
Quote:
but any other judge and I'd have a hard time believing the judge wouldn't feel that an insult to his / her intelligence had not just happened.
Any other judge who cares enough to know how easy/hard it is to get a permit for a layman. Anti's won't care. Unconcerned judges won't know. Sure they may find out via the case itself, but to start with they won't know, so it's probably easy to get away with.
JimDandy is offline  
Old March 15, 2014, 05:57 AM   #33
press1280
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 223
Peruta's opinion specifically called out Drake as wrongly decided. Circuit judges don't call out other court's opinions when there's no conflict. I don't know whether NJ really thinks their system is that much different than CA's, or they're willing to flat out lie and distort to get cert denied. They've basically gotten away with it every step of the way so far, so I guess the "strategy" has worked.
press1280 is offline  
Old March 15, 2014, 07:08 AM   #34
press1280
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 223
Just pulled up this quote from NJ's reply brief before the CA-3 orals:

Because the justifiable need requirement is directly related to an applicant’s
demonstrated need for a handgun for self-defense, the District Court correctly concluded that the requirement is no more burdensome than necessary. Slip op. at 40. Indeed, other district courts have overwhelmingly found that comparable handgun permit regulations fit the interest in public safety where those regulations require applicants to demonstrate need based on specific circumstances. See, e.g., Kachalsky, 817 F. Supp. 2d at 271 (upholding New York’s conditioning a permit on articulable,non-speculative need for self-defense); Peruta, 758 F. Supp. 2d at 1117 (upholding “good cause” requirement for concealed carry).


Isn't it funny how now with Peruta being reversed, NJ is claiming CA's scheme is no longer comparable to that of NJ?
press1280 is offline  
Old March 15, 2014, 03:36 PM   #35
HarrySchell
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 30, 2007
Location: South CA
Posts: 561
I guess the NJ judge is NOT referring to the current 9th Circuit ruling on Peruta, to say "upholding "good cause" requirement".

That is not what the 9th said, other than good cause is personal self-defense.

Not to be petty, but if on SCOTUS I would grant cert for the chance to torture the judge as badly as he tortured the words of the 9th majority. An insulting leap of illogical thought.
__________________
Loyalty to petrified opinions never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul in this world — and never will.
— Mark Twain
HarrySchell is offline  
Old April 2, 2014, 09:11 PM   #36
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,322
A hat tip to Maestro Pistolero, for pointing me to the brief.

Quote:
CONCLUSION
Were this Court to allow the opinion below to stand, it would strongly signal that Heller and McDonald are not serious, binding opinions. The Second Amendment right is “fundamental,” but it can only be exercised if the state agrees it’s a good idea; can be overridden by modern “legislative judgments” backed by nothing; sets out rules that are wholly swallowed by the fact that guns have always been regulated or by “longstanding” laws enacted at any time; and is wholly respected by practices disabling 99.98% of the populationfrom exercising the “rights” it secures.

This is simply not how rights function under our Constitution. The petition should be granted.
So ends the Reply brief.

20 pdf pages, all of it a good read. Now we wait to see if it has convinced the SCOTUS to grant cert.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Drake_cert_reply_FILED.pdf (86.5 KB, 25 views)
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old April 4, 2014, 10:24 AM   #37
Jim March
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 14, 1999
Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA
Posts: 7,329
It's now listed as "distributed for conference of April 18th":

http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.a...les/13-827.htm

That's a Friday. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that means it's just the first possible opportunity for the Supremes to decide to hear it? Could be held over for another conference?
__________________
Jim March
Jim March is offline  
Old April 5, 2014, 03:13 PM   #38
press1280
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 223
Sure it's possible to be held. I'm doubting it though-nether party is asking for it to be held. I think they'll make a call one way or the other and Monday the 21st we find out.
press1280 is offline  
Old April 18, 2014, 09:09 AM   #39
diamondd817
Member
 
Join Date: January 20, 2013
Posts: 18
What are the chances we might hear an answer today?
diamondd817 is offline  
Old April 18, 2014, 02:16 PM   #40
speedrrracer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 15, 2011
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 271
Quote:
What are the chances we might hear an answer today?
I'd like to know, too. Some have said they'll decide today but it won't be announced [via channels to which most of us have access, like ScotusBlog] until Monday.
speedrrracer is online now  
Old April 18, 2014, 03:47 PM   #41
press1280
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 223
http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/c...814zr_g204.pdf

Nothing on today's orders. It'll be Monday.
press1280 is offline  
Old April 21, 2014, 08:44 AM   #42
Davey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 2, 2010
Location: Not far enough from Chicago
Posts: 372
http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/c...14zor_c0n2.pdf

Looks like Drake was denied.

13-8689 DRAKE, SAM V. HUBBARD, WARDEN, ET AL. was listed under Denied. I'm guessing that's the one we're looking for.
Davey is offline  
Old April 21, 2014, 08:54 AM   #43
ammoeater
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 14, 2000
Location: NJ
Posts: 169
I believe that is a different case?
__________________
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, - go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!
Samuel Adams
Philadelphia Statehouse
1 August 1776
ammoeater is offline  
Old April 21, 2014, 09:02 AM   #44
Davey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 2, 2010
Location: Not far enough from Chicago
Posts: 372
Well Drake wasn't listed under Granted.
Davey is offline  
Old April 21, 2014, 09:09 AM   #45
Jim March
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 14, 1999
Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA
Posts: 7,329
Nope, our Drake case isn't in there. Here's the listing for what was distributed for conference on April 18th so something like this will show up in "granted" or "denied":

https://certpool.com/dockets/13-827

We're not dead yet...looks like what happened was, they got too busy Friday to get to it OR there's a bitter argument brewing over it. Danged if I know which, I would hope for the former. So it's held for the next scheduling conference.

In the overall scheme of things it may mean nothing.

Sigh.
__________________
Jim March
Jim March is offline  
Old April 21, 2014, 09:14 AM   #46
Davey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 2, 2010
Location: Not far enough from Chicago
Posts: 372
Thanks for the clarification!
Davey is offline  
Old April 21, 2014, 11:56 AM   #47
speedrrracer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 15, 2011
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 271
Jim March has it right -- you can see at his link that we've been distributed / re-listed for this Friday (which probably again means next Monday).
speedrrracer is online now  
Old April 21, 2014, 01:53 PM   #48
Jim March
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 14, 1999
Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA
Posts: 7,329
Ah, they just put that up since I checked last.

Looking at the other cases for this coming Friday it's still a huge list:

https://certpool.com/conferences/2014-04-25

Hmmm...maybe this one has a big squabble going on and they put it aside for now, or they were just busy.
__________________
Jim March
Jim March is offline  
Old April 21, 2014, 04:26 PM   #49
press1280
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 223
Some are speculating that a SCOTUS justice(or 2) is wanting to wait to see what happens with the CA9 cases. But CA9 doesn't move quickly, so if we see the case re-listed again, then maybe they are waiting for that.
Otherwise it may just be a fence sitter wanting to dig into the briefs further.
press1280 is offline  
Old April 21, 2014, 04:32 PM   #50
speedrrracer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 15, 2011
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280
Some are speculating that a SCOTUS justice(or 2) is wanting to wait to see what happens with the CA9 cases
And some have speculated that CA9 is waiting to see if SCOTUS grants cert to Drake. Sounds like a recipe for the next Palmer, where nothing will happen for years and years.
speedrrracer is online now  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.16952 seconds with 8 queries